Fixed Blade In Georgia?

C

cbb

Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
56
Can a sub 3 inch fixed be carried concealed?
Sub 2 incher fixed ok on school grounds as an employee?

Law seems a little hazy in this area. :confused:
 
Last edited:
FWIW, I've been trying to figure this out myself for a while now. I've read the code several times and parts of it still seem rather vague to me. I couldn't say whether it's legal or not, but I wouldn't carry a fixed blade on school grounds. My sister's a teacher and with all the silly things that the teachers get hassled for by administrators, I could imagine what would happen if one was spotted with a fixed blade, no matter how small.

I probably would stick to nothing more threatening (won't get into the issue of scissors and other pointy school supplies here) than a Vic Classic on school grounds, at least until I could get a clear answer on that section of the code. And even then I wouldn't want most of the students to see it. Sad? Yes. But kids gossip and I wouldn't want my name dragged through the news over a tiny knife that I was using to open an envelope.

Wanted to add: Sorry I couldn't actually help.
 
Need a definition of : 'knife designed for the purpose of offense and defense'.

The code(16-11-126) is very unclear, I think on purpose. :rolleyes:
 
cbb said:
Need a definition of : 'knife designed for the purpose of offense and defense'.

The code(16-11-126) is very unclear, I think on purpose. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

cbb is correct. That is the operative language in the GA Code.

For example, I would not carry a push dagger or any folder with a "tactical" name or markings. That would just give a prosecutor a basis to say that your knife is 'designed for the purpose of offense and defense'.

Very unclear. I EDC a Delica.

The other strange legal twist is that GA issues concealed FIREARMS licenses. So I can legally carry a gun, but potentially be arrested for carry a 'knife designed for the purpose of offense and defense'.
 
The recent Supreme Court ruling specifically said that defense was a legitimate reason to carry arms, and "arms" was not limited to guns.
 
joe-bob said:
The recent Supreme Court ruling specifically said that defense was a legitimate reason to carry arms, and "arms" was not limited to guns.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Heller decision? If so, that's not the holding. The SC ruled that DC's prohibition against owning a handgun violated the 2d Amendment.

It did not address "carrying" arms outside of one's home. Also, the 2d Amendment has not yet been ruled to apply against the states.


Are you referring to a different case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top